Get task

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses that trader/item/map ids are resolved to names, which is a useful behavioral detail. It also implies a read-only operation ('Get'), though it doesn't explicitly state side effects or permissions. Given the simplicity, this is adequate.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds a valuable detail about id resolution. Every word earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity (3 params, no output schema), the description provides a good overview of what the result contains (objectives, requirements, rewards, failure outcomes) and the id-resolution behavior. It doesn't cover error cases or return format, but that's not critical for a single-fetch tool. Sibling tools like search_tasks are not mentioned, but the usage is clear.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters have descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond clarifying that idOrName can be either an id or a name, which the schema already states. It does not elaborate on lang or gameMode, but the schema enums and defaults cover them. Baseline 3 is correct.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('full detail for one task/quest') and lists the content (objectives, requirements, rewards, failure outcomes). It distinguishes from search_tasks by specifying it retrieves a single task by id or name, and from get_item/get_trader by focusing on tasks. The mention of id-to-name resolution adds a distinguishing feature.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description clearly implies usage: when you have a task id or name and need full detail. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the context is clear. No exclusions or alternative routing is provided, so a 4 is appropriate.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.